Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Signature

Signature, signature alt, caption fields needed in the template! --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Brought up and rejected before. Totally superfluous, would not add anything of informational value. Wikipedia is not an autograph book. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
i saw this reply yesterday, but waiting for someone else's reply. anyway, why do you think adding signature makes Wikipedia autograph book? what'll be next comment? Wikipedia is not a photo album, so remove image? nayway, back to point- signature is only very closely related thing of a person we can easily add in an article (other than image). Not in all articles, but for some articles signature will be important and helpful.
See also: relation between person's handwriting and psychology here: Graphology. --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Please read WP:IBX and explain why a musician's signature would qualify as a "key fact" about that musician. What essential biographical information would it convey? In almost any article about a person, in any medium (encyclopedia, magazine, newspaper, news story, etc.) one expects to see a photo of that person. One generally does not expect to see a signature, as it does not communicate anything "important and helpful" about the person's life and/or career. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Let me explain-
1) When someone meets a musical artist (s)he does not ask for a photograph, but ask the artist's signature/autograph! (I know this point does not have much (any?) encyclopedic value, but it shows how a common person approaches a celebrity).
2)For a stub article signature is not necessary, but, for a well written article it'll increase article's quality.
3)Example infobox person. In infobox person or in infobox author there is signature field, but you'll see only in few articles signature is added. If we have signature field for lyricist (writer), then why not musician? And even we add signature field, I think only in a small percentage of article signature will be added.
4)See this signature, even if you don't know the person, from the autograph you can guess the person is in the field of classical music (see the signature), and actually he he is a classical music maestro! You can also see this signature, I think you can guess the person. Now, please answer from neutral point of view, if we add this signature in the article Shakira, will not it look nice? (same with music legends like Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan etc.)
5)And also signature is part of graphology, and the only personal thing we can add in an article easily (other than photo). Not in all article we can add a music sample of the musician (can we)?
6)So, even if signature is not key fact, it can be added in a field, for some articles we can use signature field (similar to (infobox person)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
My responses:
  1. Not necessarily. We live in the cell phone age, where everyone has a camera on them at all times. I go to many, many concerts and people are just as apt to ask for a photo with a musician as they are an autograph. I met Dustin Kensrue of Thrice earlier this week and I didn't ask for an autograph, I got a picture with him. In any case this doesn't have any encyclopedic value because, like I said, this is an encyclopedia and not an autograph book.
  2. How would it increase the quality? It would be strictly decorative. Seeing a person's signature doesn't convey to you anything about that person or what they've done, other than "this is what their signature looks like".
  3. {{Infobox person}} has something like 50 fields, most of which are relevant only to small subsets of persons. Just because something is a fit for one infobox doesn't make it a fit for another ("sauce for the goose..."). Experience shows that if we add a field, editors will be inclined to fill it whether or not it's relevant.
  4. Whether it "looks nice" is irrelevant. Infoboxes are for key biographical details, not décor. If a person has a particularly neat-looking signature, there's certainly no reason it can't be placed somewhere else in the article, or in a Wikimedia Commons category of images related to that person. But it simply doesn't belong in the infobox.
  5. It's certainly not the "only personal thing" we can add besides photos. Good articles generally have quotes from the person, numerous biographical details about their life, etc. etc. Since handwriting isn't a "key biographical detail", we don't need it in the infobox. Again, this doesn't bar it from being included somewhere else in the article, if for example there are a shortage of free images.
  6. You said it yourself: it's not a key fact. Just because we can add something doesn't mean we should. There are many details not included in this infobox (height, weight, hair color, personal & familial relationships, etc.). Again, the comparison to infobox person is unconvincing due to the numerous superfluous fields that infobox includes. There's a reason we have a separate infobox for musicians in the first place.
--IllaZilla (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I am against the addition of the signature field per the reasons given by IllaZilla plus per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes "If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all", overall a small percentage of musicians will have available signature. J04n(talk page) 18:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
IllaZilla, I have read carefully your detailed and well written post! But, it seems the point related to "graphology" has been overlooked here. Anyway, we can ignore it now. Hope this discussion will be preserved as another voice in support of signature (as you said in your first post Nope. Brought up and rejected before. ) --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Reissue label?

I have engaged in a small dispute over whether or not a label that is distributing old material should be listed in the infobox. I didn't see anything in the archives and thought I'd drop comment here. My stance is that the label field should only have labels that own the rights to the artist's music and that the artists have signed contracts with. A label that is reissuing old material hold an exclusive and limited license allowing them to distribute material that they do not own the rights to. I also pointed out that the Allmusic entry for Paranoid lists dozens (more are listed under "other editions") of labels who have reissued or distributed Black Sabbath's album in various countries over the years. It would be absurd to list all of these in the artist's infobox. Thoughts? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your interpretation of how this field should be used. The commentary for this field states label or labels to which the act has been signed, your post seems consistent with that. J04n(talk page) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I always follow the practice that the infobox (be it about an album, film, video game, whatever) refers to the original release and not to any/all subsequent re-releases. Items like these may be reissued many times by various labels/publishers/distributors, but for an at-a-glance summary of key details only the original release info is usually important. Reissues should be mentioned in the article body, but clutter up the infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The only reason why I added Rise Records to the list of labels for Poison the Well was because of this http://www.riserecords.com/new_site/bands_inside.htm • GunMetal Angel 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help in an article!

Somehow the template is broken in this article: Tanmoy Bose I can't figure out the error! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed You had a stray space between the closing brackets of an internal link: [[Tabla] ] → [[Tabla]] fixed the problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! :-D I did not create/edit the article before, was trying to wikify. --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Born" and "Died" no longer used

Mostly thanks to User:Avicennasis, Category:Articles using Infobox musical artist with deprecated parameters is now empty and |Born= and |Died= are no longer in use, as they have been replaced by |birth_date=, |birth_place=, |death_date= and |death_place=. I've already edited the sandbox to remove the parameters, but does anyone have any objections to removing them from the actual template? (I haven't removed the code that calls the tracking category, just in case anyone wants to sling more parameters in there.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have (objections)! And I can see birth and death dates in Template:Infobox musical artist/sandbox --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand me, but I've clarified my original statement. All I did was remove the previous method of displaying birth/death information, in order to match other infoboxes using the same method. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the params & also the tracking category as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
No objection! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't touched the tracking code because most parameters on this infobox have more than one way to display them (for example, websites can use |website=, |URL= and |url=), but they are easily dealt with by bots. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No objections here! Statυs (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Guys please include the nationality in the infobox.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't - it is unnecessary and not as simple as it may seem, as many musicians are born in one country but live and work in others. This creates endless pointless arguments, especially with UK artists, of which there are a disproportionate number. Should it be "British" or are they English / Scottish / Welsh, whilst if they are from Northern Ireland, or should that be Ulster, it can get even more vitriolic. Arjayay (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok as you wish.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Age?

It would be nice if there were a way to directly put in age for musicians whom we know their age but not their birth date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadenssContinued (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know their birth date, how do you know their age? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If you know someone is, say, thirty, as of today, then enter {{Birth based on age as of date|30|2012|08|17}} in the |birth_date= parameter. This will render as 1981 or 1982 (age 42–43). Be careful if their age is given in an old source document, to use the date of that document, not the date you when enter it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
@IllaZilla: Because the artist states age, but not birthdate.--MadenssContinued (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
@Andy: Thank you! I also updated the template page.--MadenssContinued (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the number of pages that this notice has been posted on highlights the need for a central 'register' for music-related discussions, something akin to WP:CENT but specifically for music-related projects. Transcluding a list of discussions onto related project pages would save having to notify editors by posting to multiple talk pages. Discussions regarding this template, manual of style issues, notability discussions, etc. generally suffer from a lack of input so it would likely also help with those - we often get decisions affecting thousand of articles made based on only a few editors contributing to a discussion. --Michig (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Need for parameters

Please add Height and Weight Parameters. akhil aprem (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? --IllaZilla (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces for short multi-word labels

I've noticed that some fairly short multi-word labels will sometimes have annoying line breaks. For example, a label such as "Years active" will occupy two lines if it's longer than the first word of the label that has the longest first word. Please have a look at the infobox at Stanford Harmonics to see what I'm talking about. Does it make sense to insert non-breaking spaces into short multi-word labels? For example, change "Years active" to "Years& nbsp;active". My apologies if this was already discussed in the archives. Lambtron (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Another layout issue: in lists of members and former members, there is an inconsistently large gap above the final member. Lambtron (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to use non-breaking spaces

Problem - In some cases, a multi-word infobox label may be split into multiple lines due to automatic line breaking, thus diminishing its readibility. Whether this happens depends on other labels appearing in the infobox. For example if a long single-word label such as "instrument" appears, "birth date" will be unbroken; otherwise "birth date" may be split into two lines.

Solution - Use non-breaking spaces in multi-word labels.

Proposal - I propose that spaces be replaced with non-breaking spaces in all short multi-word labels used in this template. This change would apply to the following labels:

  • birth name
  • birth date
  • death date
  • birth place
  • death place
  • native name
  • years active

Comments? Lambtron (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Discography inclusion (revisit)

I don't want to be accused of stirring up WP:HORSEMEAT, but I think it'd be worth including a link to the artist's discography in the infobox, like this:

The Beatles
Members
Discography
Websitethebeatles.com

The only difference is that the title can be pre-governed by the article's page title and it would utilise the colouring of the infobox type background (yellow for solo, blue for band etc). I think also then setting it up as opt-in ("discography = yes" and "nonstandarddiscog = Rolling Stones discography" etc), as I'm pretty sure the amount of discography pages would be dwarfed fivefold by the amount of pages this infobox appears on. Thoughts? --rm 'w avu 04:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is beyond the purpose of an infobox, since it would serve purely for navigation. The infobox's purpose is not navigation (though it certainly facilitates a lot of it). Discography articles are generally linked from "Discography" sections within the article, in a "See also" section, and/or within a navigation template. Since the purpose in the infobox would be purely navigational, I have to say nay. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
While I do agree that there is ideally a provision for it in navboxes, some artists simply don't warrant having one, yet they certainly do illicit having a discography article; hell, it could even link to the discography section, if necessary, but introducing navboxes for some artists is just plain erroneous, despite their body of work being rather large. I know this isn't a musical artist, but Colin Thiele is a writer whos works were unfortunately weighing down his article page, and so I split it off to a separate article, but by no means would I ever even dream of creating a navbox for the 5 or 6 books that have articles out of the 100+ works he wrote. --rm 'w avu 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed, the article itself is the best place to find this information and if a separate disco article exists the article will feature the link prominently. Hekerui (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

French Musical Artist Template

I've been scoping out the French Wikipedia, and it seems they are a bit more creative than English speakers. Does anyone know how we can match or exceed the standard demonstrated here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna ie: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Infobox_Musique_%28artiste%29 , I must admit, I am also behind the curve which is why I can only point it out at this point in time.

Twillisjr (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a big difference apart from their liking for logos and a slightly more decorative name bar. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
And the breaking of WP:INFOBOXFLAG. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

years active parameter for bands who have announced that they will disband

Should the years_active parameter be {{start_date}}–2013 for a band that has announced that it will be disbanding after a tour that completes in February, or should it be {{start_date}}–present until they have actually disbanded? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The band in question is Underoath, just for relevance. For transparency, I was the one who reverted Walter Görlitz. I actually don't care one way or the other, I was just trying to be accurate, but if listing a future disbandment in the years active parameter is non-standard, I apologize.--¿3family6 contribs 01:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Signatures

I've noticed many articles seem to be inserting signatures into the website parameter as the infobox lacks a signature parameter, such as in this example: 

| website = {{url|example.com}}
<br />[[File:Example signature.svg|100px]]<br />Example's signature
}}

This practice is done on a wide array of articles which include the featured articles Elvis Presley, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, and the featured article John Lennon contains a file of his signature immediately below the infobox. This is also done on a lot of good articles, including Beyoncé Knowles, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Madonna. I'd like to note that the majority of the articles that do this specify the signature's width to be 100px. This is to give it the appearance of being centered, which it is not, as infoboxes are divided into two fixed-width columns (i.e. Column one: "Birth name", "Born". Column two: "Michael Joseph Jackson", "August 29, 1958") and the signature file is only piggybacking on the website parameter's second column.

I've noticed debates about adding a signature parameter to the infobox have occurred in the past and would have to agree they are purely decorative and do not aid in the immediate identification of a person, which is the purpose of having the artist's image.

To get to the point, signatures should be removed from all instances of this infobox until a parameter supporting signatures is added, if it ever is. Scarce2 (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

They should be removed. I removed them from the four articles. The one for Lennon is outside of the infobox and so it's not an issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Remove on sight. Not infobox content. Inserting via the method above is weaseling around the lack of a supported parameter for the purpose of pure decoration. Totally superfluous to the purpose of an infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Your claims are contradicted by the presence and regular use of signatures in other biographical infoboxes. As with other generic parameters discussed here in the past, we should have one standard for Wikipedia, not one for one infobox and another for a different infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Why remove them, and not move them outside the infobox, as as already the case for Lennon? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Remove them because they're not part of the template. If editors on those pages want to move them outside of the infobox, they may. Doing so is not our responsibility. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Andy, the presence or non-presence of fields in other infoboxes is of no consequence here. This infobox does not support signatures, because they are not relevant to the person's career as a musician. Thus they should not be included. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is a non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems to both make sense and follow the discussion. His comment stems from the use of the signature parameter in the person infobox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
As I've said many times in past discussions, Template:Infobox person has something like 50 fields, many of which do not service a presentation of basic biographical details. As usual, I refer to WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." If you believe a signature is a "key fact" and "necessary content" for an infobox in a biography of a musician, please explain why. The fact that some other infoboxes have them is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why you might read my above comments as suggesting that (or even addressing whether) I believe a signature is a "key fact" and "necessary content" for an infobox. Perhaps, rather than tilting at windmills, or dismissing the point I did make with a bogus claim of irrelevance and an out-of-context quotation, you might address it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But he's not tilting at windmills. The infobox is only for key facts about the artists. The only reason someone would suggesting that a new parameter be added would be if it were a key fact about an artist. While the question originally posted was should we allow the URL/website parameter to be used for signatures--which was pretty much a resounding no--I think IllaZilla was responding to your suggestion that their presence seems to imply that some editors think that they should be included, which is also a resounding no. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you said "Your claims are contradicted by the presence and regular use of signatures in other biographical infoboxes." I responded that they probably do not belong in these other infoboxes either, as supported by WP:IBX's advice regarding the purpose of an infobox. You also said "As with other generic parameters discussed here in the past, we should have one standard for Wikipedia, not one for one infobox and another for a different infobox." WP:IBX is that standard. Did you have another point in there somewhere that I missed? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There is clear consensus that signatures don't belong in this infobox. The unresolved issue seems to be whether an infobox-resident signature should be deleted or moved out to the article. Frankly, a musician's signature (or fingerprint, etc.) doesn't seem very informative or useful to me, so I would be inclined to delete it. If I'm feeling energetic, and if there's an appropriate commons category, I might also add a link that takes readers to the artist's signature (and other related images) there. In any case, I would leave it up to individual editors to decide whether the signature is worthy of preservation. Lambtron (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless there's something noteworthy to say about the signature, I'd leave it out of the article. Have it in a Commons category, sure, but displaying signatures in articles "just because" doesn't add anything informative and thus doesn't make our articles better. Wikipedia isn't an autograph book. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we add a collapsible option?

Like there is in {{Infobox video game}}? Statυs (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would one ever collapse an infobox, which is top-of-the-article content? --IllaZilla (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

birth_name parameter broken

I just tried to add it to an article and it didn't appear in the infobox. I think it happened here. Any ideas if this is universal or is affecting other artists? Any ideas how to fix it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It works. See Amy Grant for an example. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The article I was trying to add it to already had it listed as an empty parameter. The second, empty parameter over-wrote the correct one. Thanks.
The documentation is messed-up though.
birth_name
This field is only relevant for individuals. The person's name in their own language
native_name
This field is only relevant for individuals. The artist's name at birth.
Again, don't know how to fix that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed I just swapped the descriptions in the documentation page. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality?

Seems rather odd that nationality has deliberately been left out. Twobells (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Should likely fall under BLPCAT rules, I suspect. Collect (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Members for inactive groups

For groups such as The Beatles or The Andrews Sisters, listing members as "past members" seems a little out of place, suggesting they left the band. Can we switch to in these cases simply heading this scetion in the infobox "members"? --LukeSurl t c 16:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

They did leave the band, because the band broke up...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox field needed

I would like to see a "home venue" field added to this infobox for the cases when it is used for a symphony orchestra. Most if not all symphony orchestras have a home venue with which they are identified. For example, the Seattle Symphony's home venue is Benaroya Hall. The New York Philharmonic performs at Avery Fisher Hall in Lincoln Center, New York City. (Even better would be a separate infobox for orchestras, but failing that, we use this.) •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Relationships and nationality for individuals

I would like to make a request so we can add the nationality and the relationship (or marriage) and family (like siblings, parents, etc.) for the musicians in their info box like how it's done on "Infobox person". That way we can add more about there current relationship (or marriage) just by adding it on the info box. Like I said just like how it's done for "Infobox person". --Mr. Washee Washee (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

These have both been discussed numerous times before. For the latest discussion on Spouse/partner/children, see the top of this page, which includes a list of the 22 previous discussions. Nationality also appears further up this page, and in several previous Archives - nationality is not as simple as it sounds. Other bad ideas have been adding:- influenced (imagine that parameter on, say, The Beatles page), religion, signature, cause of death, net worth and height - I'm not joking, they're all in the archives. Arjayay (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Alma Mater field

I noticed the infobox person has an alma_mater field, but the musical artist one doesn't recognize this. For individual artists, this can be very relevant information for many artists. How would we add this to this infobox? Or is there a way to add custom fields to infoboxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.0.105 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the "Relationships and nationality for individuals" (currently) just above this section. It's the same issue. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing parameter

I believe there is a missing parameter for this template "spouse" as with other templates contain the spouse parameter. Thanks for reading.69.59.106.53 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Text alignment of past and current members

Is there a reason that the past and current members fields are center aligned like a Hallmark greeting card? This is very amateurish styling, which is largely unseen on the web since the mid 1990s. The text in these fields really should be left aligned by default. - MrX 18:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree; I think they should be left-justified. Also, why is there an unusually large gap above the last member (both past and present)? I see this non-uniform gap in both IE and FF. Lambtron (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
That's weird. I'm not seeing the large gap in IE, FF or Chrome. Do you an example you can link to and I will check it with Firebug? - MrX 19:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Example: Stanford Harmonics. Lambtron (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The software is inserting a close paragraph tag (</p>) before the last item for some reason. I fixed it by wrapping each list in a {{Plainlist}} template, which is technically the recommended way to format such lists. You can look at the markup on this article to see how to add parameters to force the list to left align. - MrX 20:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, MrX -- I've been trying to figure that one out for awhile. Now, on to the text alignment issue: left vs. center? Lambtron (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It's probably best to reach consensus on text alignment and change the template instead of manually styling each infobox instance. Perhaps this should be put to a vote? Lambtron (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not amateurish at all. Hallmark card don't usually centre their text. It's actually a good design choice for avoiding the problem of having labels on the left edge and copy on the right. As you scan the page, your eyes look for the data on that side.
We bet attempting to achieve consensus not run a vote. :::::: That said, my only choice would not to push the text up to the left edge. If we can indent it by at least three em-spaces, that would work better, but might look odd. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Wait, you don't think that centering each list entry so that the list looks like a broken Christmas tree doesn't look amateurish? Look at any professional web site—this is not good formatting. Why not left align the list with an optional indent parameter? See what I did here Template:Infobox chef and how it looks in application here: Paul Liebrandt (click the show links).
The Hallmark card comment was hyperbole on my part. It was not intended to be a serious comparison. - MrX 21:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Broken Christmas tree, yes. Not amateur, no. Left align the list with an optional indent parameter would be ideal though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to see if we can flag an admin responsible for this template to see if we can make lists left align with an indent. - MrX 22:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

so do you want to change 

| data18     = {{{Past_members|{{{past_members|}}}}}}

to 

| data18     = {{#if:{{{Past_members|{{{past_members|}}}}}}|<div style="text-align:left">
{{{Past_members|{{{past_members|}}}}}}
</div>}}
or are you suggesting to add indentation as well (e.g., an additional 'padding-left:0.5em' after the text-align:left) ? either way would be fine with me. Frietjes (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
by the way, if you are going to do that, you might as well add the 'class=plainlist' in there as well, so you can just use a simple bulleted list in the article, and it will be automatically formatted. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
| data18     = {{#if:{{{Past_members|{{{past_members|}}}}}}|<div class="plainlist" style="text-align:left">
{{{Past_members|{{{past_members|}}}}}}
</div>}}
Thanks for the quick response. Yes, with indentation. I was thinking that 1em might be a little more distinct than 0.5em, but I won't quibble. It would be nice to be able to change the indent size by passing a parameter, or by simply adding a style as we current can with Plainlist.
Can styles still be added to the Plainlist if you assign it as a class as shown in your last example? If not, it would probably be better to not assign it as a class, to allow for more flexibility. I hope that makes sense. - MrX 00:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
hlist overrides plainlist, but not the other way around. so making the default plainlist would not prohibit someone from using hlist, but it would prohibit them from making a simple vertical bulleted list. given that the default is currently center aligned, I doubt anyone would be doing that right now, since it would look extra silly. it's probably a good idea to just settle on a particular indentation and not have it as a parameter for consistency between articles. the appearance is almost certainly going to be browser dependent, so it would be good to not have a wide range of indentation styles across articles. although, I would support having an option to choose between left-align or center-align in the case that someone wants to hlist the list of members, rather than plainlist it. for example, if there is a really large number of members, I could imagine a plainlist might get a bit long? but, perhaps it's better to just stick with one style for all. Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan to me. The options that you suggested make sense. - MrX 00:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
May we see a sandboxed version of it before the change is applied? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
sure
sandbox
GenresDisco, punk rock
LabelsUnsigned
Members
  • John Smith
  • Jill Johnson
  • William Vanderhosen
Past members
  • Becky Buckmeister
  • Dali
  • Tim Template
current
GenresDisco, punk rock
LabelsUnsigned
Members
  • John Smith
  • Jill Johnson
  • William Vanderhosen
Past members
  • Becky Buckmeister
  • Dali
  • Tim Template
sandbox2
Musical career
GenreDisco, punk rock
LabelsUnsigned
Members
  • John Smith
  • Jill Johnson
  • William Vanderhosen
Past members
  • Becky Buckmeister
  • Dali
  • Tim Template
I went with 1em for the left padding. the sandbox version doesn't require using {{plainlist}} since the class is automatically included. Frietjes (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That looks great to me. - MrX 01:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Five em would look even better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Both one and five em look odd to me because they don't align with any other fields. If it's deemed unaesthetic to align them with the above field names, how about aligning them to the above field values (thus making them part of the "second column")? Lambtron (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see the aesthetic benefit of that, but I'm not sure it's very practical. The second column exists to allow for labels on the same line. In the case of current and past members, the labels exists as a headings. That said, I do believe that aligning with the second column makes more sense than arbitrarily indenting 5 ems. - MrX 04:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
aligning them with the second column would be very easy. you just need to add
| label16    = <nowiki />
| label18    = <nowiki />
now added to the examples in a second sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Second column is the best, but why not make the sub-heading a label instead? That way it's not a visual vertical break. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I like the middle one (1st sandbox), with the option of aligning with the second column as Frietjes explained above. If we were to make the sub heading a label then we would be forcing the members into the second column. I would prefer not to do this, but I could live with it if there is consensus to do it that way. - MrX 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You probably want to make this optional (at least at first), since some transclusions are using a wrapped bullet list, like Led Zeppelin. So, perhaps have a flag, like 'align_members = left' or something. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
So the proposal is to keep the section headers ("Members" and "Past Members") centralised, with the text in the sections left aligned, but using a different margin to both the columns in the section above?? I really can't imagine anything worse.
I accept the current, centred, layout for Members and Past Members is at odds with the main section of the Infobox, but if people want left alignment, please align everything to the same margins/tabs - IMHO Snndbox 2 above is far preferable to Sandbox 1.
Having undertaken layout work in the past, I think looking at the truncated examples given above is very dangerous. You need to look at the overall impact of the entire infobox, which is often dominated by the earler sections with a centred photo and caption, the left margined and tabbed entries for Alias, Origin, Genres, Years active, Labels, Associated acts etc. etc. - Arjayay (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't completely agree, as I find the centered alignment to be the most abominable and it flies in the face of good web information presentation practices. I can get on board with aligning with the second column though, with an override to allow moving the list to the left to accommodate longer names (or not; we could just let them wrap). - MrX 18:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
One problem is that the Wikipedia standard is for section, or sub-heading, titles to be centred in all infoboxes. So, whichever of the proposed changes is adopted, the infobox will still have some of its content centred - the question is how to design the rest of the box to work with this, rather than fight it. Perhaps Walter Görlitz's idea above, of using left margined labels instead of sub-headings, would resolve this, by avoiding the centred text. However, visual breaks make information more easily identifiable, so, if the infobox looks too uniform without the sub-heading breaks, these could perhaps be inserted as horizontal lines. - Arjayay (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
sandbox3
GenresDisco, punk rock
LabelsUnsigned
Members
  • John Smith
  • Jill Johnson
  • William Vanderhosen
Past members
  • Becky Buckmeister
  • Dali
  • Tim Template

I agree that members should not be centered, and also that left-aligned members inherently clash with centered labels. This might be resolved by combining several of the above ideas: use simple horizontal lines for visual breaks instead of centered labels; put each section's label in column 1, to the left of its first member (just like other labels); and list members left-aligned in column 2. Would this be acceptable, and is it feasible? Lambtron (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

and we now have a third example :) Frietjes (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Sandbox3 wins by a country mile (that's about 2 KM for those who are unfamiliar with the term). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good

I just spot-checked a dozen band articles and it looks good. Nice work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

and now that it has plainlist in the default class, you can do this and this. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree it is a very significant improvement
I'm not sure about the wording " Separate multiple entries using * list markup. " in the template documentation.
I'm used to plainlists, but their use is not clear from that phrase. If someone doesn't know what " * list markup " is, they are likely to search for it - but a WP search for " * list markup " returns "There were no results matching the query" (I don't think the search can cope with *)
Can we please rephrase the template documentation to refer to plainlist. Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Orchestra infobox: proposal

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Orchestra infobox: proposal. It is proposed that the new infobox be used on some articles currently using this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Associated acts

I would like to propose the removal of this parameter. I don't watch a lot of musical articles, but on nearly all of the ones that I do, this parameter is basically always misused. Every time the subject of the article sings with a different band/person, I see someone add it to the parameter...and then someone else re-adds it after it's removed, and then adds someone else that the subject dated...and then someone else who has a project rumored for next year...The instructions here explicitly state it's for only those groups with long term connections, but of course, most editors haven't read these instructions (I don't fault them for this, it's not like it's an obvious thing to look for). The truth is, these types of "associations" are extraordinarily rare, and the parameter causes more problems than its worth. Even in cases where the parameter is correctly used,...is it really necessary for the infobox? The info could be better covered in prose in the article (in fact, it has to be covered in extensive prose in the article to rise to the level required for inclusion in the infobox). Since the infobox should just be for those things someone would need to learn "at a glance", I propose this parameter is not necessary. This is not a case of "some people misuse it"...it's a case where, in my experience, it's misused well over 90% of the time, for understandable reasons, and doesn't add much value even when it's used correctly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of misuse, but I fix that when I can. It might be good to remove the parameter though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's misused to that extent, although there is some misuse, as there is for most fields in the infobox. I disagree that it doesn't add value when used correctly. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe misuse is ever grounds termination. If everything misused thing on Wikipedia was deleted, there wouldn't be much left. Misuse says more about how an encyclopedia, that anyone can edit, functions than it does about this parameter. While I agree this parameter is misused, "well over 90% of the time" seems horribly extreme and inaccurate. I believe associated acts is a valuable parameter that should be a part of this template. Fezmar9 (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify what I said above. The reason I come to my "90%" figure is that well over 90% of musicians should never have anything in that parameter. The only time something can legitimately be put there, per the template doc itself, is when the two acts have long term, ongoing connections. Almost the only time this is ever the case is for a musician who has a career as both a solo artist and as part of a band, in which case the band would probably be included in the infobox of the soloist as an associated act (but not in the band's infobox, because the included musicians would be listed in the "members" parameter). But why do we need that information right there in the infobox--why wouldn't in the lead suffice? Note that I am not suggesting that we remove the information from the article, merely that we remove it from the infobox. Why keep a parameter that is almost never needed and that by its very name invites editors to use it mistakenly? What value are we (as editors or as readers) gaining, compared to the amount of effort that conscientious editors have to make to regularly empty the parameter in almost every case? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You open your argument with "I don't watch a lot of musical articles." I'm curious what types of music articles you're watching, like can you provide examples? I almost exclusively edit music articles, specifically ones related to rock and punk. The infobox is meant to give a brief overview of several important details of a subject that are usually elaborated on in the body. At least for rock/punk/metal bands, side projects and new/old bands with the same members are important to note in the article, and I think they to add value to the infobox. For band members, the article body will mention which bands the artist has played in, and it makes sense to feature this in an overview of the artist like an infobox.
An example: Dave Grohl, a rock musician whose page is not on my watchlist. He has performed with a number of high-profile rock bands since the early 90s. Among others, he has performed as a member of Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Them Crooked Vultures and Queens of the Stone Age. The infobox is a great place to give a quick rundown of these bands that will later be elaborated on in the article. But like you say, the template is misused. Grohl's article currently lists a few acts, like The Prodigy and Slash, that he has only been a session musician for, which is not supported by this parameter's guidelines. To someone not familiar with the template's guidelines, this would not seem incorrect since Grohl is in someway associated with The Prodigy and Slash. But should this entire parameter be removed when it does provide important details for the artist just because some of the details don't perfectly align with what we say we want out of it? I personally say no, we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
No shots, but absolutely none of this is true. 90%? Really? Based on what sort of a sampling? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: It's kind of an ambiguous parameter that really is not needed. Most readers and new editors don't know what actually qualifies as associated, so it causes much work for editors to have to revert (usually) good faith edits. An alternative could be: Member of, which would include present and former groups. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. Just because something is commonly misused, doesn't mean it should be removed. Besides, I think it's quite useful to display acts that an artist has worked with frequently. Maybe a rename could be in order, to be more specific of this.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The parameter is very useful for our readers, and is often used correctly. Where it's incorrect I've had pretty good results from just fixing it myself. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment More of an example really. Take a look at Rage Against the Machine. Just an example where the values are exactly what the documentation states should not happen:
    • Association of groups with members' solo careers
    • Groups with only one member in common
It might be easier not to have the parameter, but I understand the positions on both sides of the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's highly ambiguous and, as a result, often filled with useless information. I agree with Musdan77 that something like Member of would be a practical alternative. Lambtron (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I keep forgetting to come back to this discussion. Above Fezmer asks me what kind of musical articles I watch. As I think about it, the articles that I have the biggest problems with are hip-hop and rap articles. This is because it is common (as far as I see) for hip-hop musicians to do one song with another artist (Song X by Person Y featuring Person Z). Or one artist will produce/executive produce/mix etc. another artists album. For a case where the template is used incorrectly, here's one article I used to watch: Lil B. There are three items in the parameter. The first is correct--it's the band Lil B used to/occassionally still does perform with, before his solo career. The other two are very wrong. Soulja Boy has shared one song with Lil B. Riff Raff isn't mentioned anywhere on the page, so I don't know what that's doing there. Heck, that's a mild case--go look at Riff Raff (rapper). There, everyone he's collaborated with is listed in the infobox. And removing them doesn't help--they'll be readded. On Bangs (hip hop artist), I've removed associated acts from the infobox 4 times in the last year at least. And I only watch a couple of rap/hiphop artists; I imagine the problem is endemic. But, I can see the value for rock band/solo artists. So I'm not sure which issue is more important. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's talk about the genre field of the infobox real quick. This is arguably abused far more often than the associated acts field. If I had to guess, I'd say half of all diffs on my watchlist at any given time are genre-related. This is was so frustrating to some people that the genre field was actually removed about 4 years ago (if memory serves correct). This change was immediately met with a major backlash and the genre field was reinstated. Though, it's still an issue and is a constant source of incredibly petty and looooooong arguments. Hell, I spent most of 2012 arguing about infobox genres for Deftones that only ended because everyone involved realized it was dumb and moved on.
Back to associated acts. I'd say any issues related to this field are far less troublesome than genre field issues. Misuse and arguing don't seem to be valid excuses for removing a field as evidenced by the genre example, and I still argue that this a valuable field when used correctly. Perhaps instead of severing the field altogether, we can look at ways to curb misuse. Musdan77 above suggests renaming the field. Do you think this (not so much his specific suggestion of what to change it to, just the idea of renaming it to something else in general) could help? I agree that "associated" is incredibly vague, and technically a lot of these examples of "misuse" aren't false given the word's definition. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Member of would be an improvement, I think. But are there important connections that we'd otherwise be losing? It would essentially mean the parameter could only be used on the pages of solo artists, and never on band pages. As a relevant example, which of the other bands currently listed in the parameter for Temple of the Dog, if any, should "actually" be there? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that a band is not a musical artist, yet both have been forced into a common template. Would it make more sense to have a different template for bands (e.g., "template:Musical group")? Lambtron (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible support, assuming this isn't stale. The field is a useless excuse for people to bicker. The Genre field is similar, but is at least arguably essential to the infobox. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the majority of editors have voiced to remove the parameter. Is more discussion required, should we post a notice that we are planning on removing the parameter (possibly in place of the parameter values) or does someone want to make the edit? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongest and most vehement oppose. For context, when that parameter was added to the original template, its purpose was for use much in the same way Allmusic uses it - not just to list the names of groups a person might be/have been a member of (e.g. GC Cameron being in both The Spinners and The Temptations) but to link acts - groups, single artists, songwriters, producers what have you - that are _very_ closely associated with other acts with whom they may not be formally associated by way of being in the same group (e.g. Missy Elliott and Timbaland, Diddy and Notorious BIG or Ma$e, Norman Whitfield and The Temptations, Babyface and Boyz II Men, Lil Wayne and Drake, with Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell being an over-example to illustrate why the parameter is needed in the infobox) It was also intended for use in listing acts that begat others (New Edition to Boyz II Men) and splinter acts (Jodeci to K-Ci and JoJo). No, it's not for listing _every_ rapper so-and-so collaborates with - it has to be a common, ongoing, regular thing, like Nas and Mobb Deep or AZ. Emphasize long-standing, common, and regular. If people are listing every performer Riff Raff collaborates with, well, you know what to do. It's not the template's problem - force people to follow the rules.

Also, IIRC, the original instructions limited the number in the list to three or five or so, so we shouldn't be seeing dozens (or even a dozen) names listed as it is. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Spouse, partner, and children support

I can see a clear split between the Supports and Opposes in the spouse, partner and children parameters. So basically, there is no consensus on this issue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox actor support spouse=, partner= and children=. These are not working for Template:Infobox musical artist. Is that by design? If so, why?

I noticed this as I saw that the infobox for Jessica Simpson included spouse= but the spouse is not showing up in her article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Because every time another editor points this out and wants to add that parameter to the infobox, a small group of editors stubbornly refuses to allow it. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I looked at the archives and see that it's a regularly requested field:
  1. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 1#Spouse field suggestion
  2. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 1#Spouse
  3. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 3#Other fields
  4. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 3#Parameters for dead people
  5. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 4#Spouse
  6. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 4#Spouse, children fields
  7. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 5#Partner or Spouse
  8. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 6#Add on
  9. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 6#marriage
  10. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#template also seemingly fails to accommodate "spouse" label
  11. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#More Fields
  12. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#More parameters
  13. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Spouse(s)
  14. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#All musicians are celibate
  15. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Consistency in Parameters with infoboxs within similar categories
  16. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Comparision with Actor Infobox
  17. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Spouses
  18. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 8#Edit request from Stuffed cat, 22 July 2010
  19. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 9#Spouse, partner and children
  20. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 9#How do we describe spouses and children of musicians? Includes RFC discussion
  21. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 10#Adding a spouse parameter
  22. Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 10#Spouses
It's been requested 23 times, including today's. My argument in favor of the field is simple - you leave it blank if it's not appropriate for a particular performer. Some people are private about their family lives while others regularly mention or include them. For some people I've see "children" simply listed as a number (three). --Marc Kupper|talk 20:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
As I say above in regard to |signature=: "As with other generic parameters discussed here in the past, we should have one standard for Wikipedia, not one for one infobox and another for a different infobox." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
As stated before, is it relevant to the subject's career? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
As in the other infoboxes; often, yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
How so? Using the example given, did Jessica Simpson's current spouse have anything to do with her career? Oh. You're saying she had two spouses and the first was more influential to her career than her current spouse both in terms of her musical and celebrity career. then we should have spouse1= and spouse2= shouldn't we? And we should reprogram that to spouseN=. I could go to the actor template and argue the same thing. In short, just because bad information has been added doesn't mean we should add them here. You should read Wikipedia:IBX#Purpose of an infobox: "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." So go complain that the other infoboxes have too much information instead of complaining that this infobox is "missing" parameters. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
"You're saying..." You're inventing. And, like your colleague in the signature section above, you're tilting at windmills. where do you see me "complaining that this infobox is 'missing' parameters"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Not directed at you specifically Pigsonthewing, but to those who commented originally. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree with adding fields related to friends or family members of the subject. In addition to Walter Görlitz's points above would also cite under 'General Considerations' of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." The spouses/partners/children of very few musicians are relevant. J04n(talk page) 02:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree per the numerous arguments I've put forth against this in the past, as well as the numerous arguments against it made by other editors. I'm not going to rehash it all for the umpteenth time, since the old discussions are all linked above. Numerous requests ≠ compelling reason to add. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support sometimes a spose is very important part of a musicians career John Lennon and Yoko Ono being a classic example. There are also many examples of musicial families, e.g. Lennon beget Julian Lennon. Having the data in an infobox would allow external tools like DBpedia to extract family tree data which is almost imposible without it in an info box. In reply to the question multiple spouses {{Infobox person}} allows a single spouse parameter which can have several spouses seperated by <br> see Tippi Hedren. Allowing the parameters is permissive rather than prescriptive the relations can be included when they important and left out otherwise, a sensibly limit would be if the relation has a wikipedia article.--Salix (talk): 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. A musician is not just a career person but also a famous person who the world is interested in. It does not matter whether a spouse was part of the musician's career; people in general are interested in who the spouse is or was, or in seeing a list of spouses. The encyclopedia caters to the reader's interest in most matters. The spouse parameter meets that interest. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "People are interested in it" ≠ "must be in an infobox". Spouses and other familial relationships are, one assumes, likely of interest to anyone reading a biography of a person, which is why they are (or should be) covered in the body of the article. That doesn't mean they also have to be listed in the infobox. Infoboxes are for "key facts", not every biographical detail. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Dude. There is nothing that "must be in an infobox". Nothing at all. Even the infobox is not required. What the infobox is, is a convenience. It is convenient for the reader to see key facts laid out in the infobox. A spouse (or two or three) is a key fact in a musician's life, and is something we can tell the reader up front as a convenience. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment about past discussions. The following editors have indicated their preferences in the many preceding discussions:
Just thought a sense of scale should be brought to bear on the question. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Walter, I have not seen you put forward a reason to say no except that you don't think it is needed. You have not cited policy, because there is no such policy regarding this question. Clearly it is a matter of personal preference. As such, it is one of the most promising candidates for YESVOTE I can think of. In the past, people who have said 'no' to this proposal have relied upon having multiple voices against it, upon outweighing the opposition. I find it interesting that when the !voting begins to look like a close race you attempt to close that line of leverage... Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Because people who have never commented here have suddenly taken an interest in this discussion. So rather than be evasive, please state if you've listed this discussion elsewhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It also goes against the canvassing guidelines on Wikipedia. The entire discussion is suspect until you come clean on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Let go this ridiculous line of questioning. There is no canvassing; no cross-listing that nobody is telling you about. Even if there was, it would be perfectly legitimate to bring more people here—you act as if only the regulars here are allowed to make a decision. You know, all you had to do was click on "what links here" over to the left and you would find out for yourself any and all cross listings. Now, let's focus on the question at hand rather than throw out red herrings about methodology. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Walter is making a direct accusation against me. I do hope he has evidence to support it, or will retract and strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
What's ridiculous is not my line of questioning. It is legitimate to bring others here, it would be good to know from where they were brought here and what the motives were. No herrings, red or otherwise, and the question can't be answered effectively until we know the motives for modifying this infobox template.
No accusations, just suspicions. Since no one has come forward to explain why all these new editors have come forward to enter this discussion I'm curious how they were introduced to the topic. So therefore I will not retract or strike it, however it does cast a dark light on the motives of the non-regular editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
No; you made a direct accusation: "until you come clean on it". Where is your evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you take it that way.
A direct accusation would be, "Pigsonthewing has canvased and refuses to come clean on that fact and I have proof, but I'm allowing him to be a responsible Wikipedian and provide a mia culpa before I paint him negatively and have him banned for inappropriate behaviour." What I stated was a a request for information in light of an evasive response. I hope that clears it up. No accusation. Where is your denial that you did canvas? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Posting that with an edit summary of "META:DICK" is not a retraction, nor the apology I'm due. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Andy, he's not going to give you any kind of satisfying response. Don't push for one. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Walter, really this time, lay off of it. You cannot ask that an accused editor provide proof that a false accusation is false. The burden is on you if you choose to continue down this fruitless path. I strongly recommend you just drop it. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Walter has repeated his allegation in an edit summary; still with no evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If spouses, past and present, are to be added, why not parents and siblings? After all, they might be famous too. As its title implies, "Infobox musical artist" should focus on the musical artist; parents, children, siblings, pets, hobbies, number of homes owned, ad infinitum, are not aspects of the individual artist and are therefore better left to the article. Lambtron (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for lighting the way to the Slippery_slope#Fallacy. Remember to wear your waders and sturdy shoes. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You cannot logically argue for the inclusion of spouses and children and not also include parents, siblings, and other familial relationships, as they are all of a kind. The most common argument in favor of adding "spouse", etc. is that these are included in {{Infobox person}}, but that infobox has something like 50 fields, many of which are superfluous and trivial. Therefore the "slippery slope" argument is hardly fallacious. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
        • You must have missed the ad infinitum part of Lambtron's argument. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I realize you're just being facetious Binksternet, but you seem to have missed the point of my argument. To clarify: Spouses (and parents, children, pets, et al) are not aspects of musical artistry, which is what this template is about. Lambtron (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
            • I simply took the ad infinitum bit for the sarcasm it clearly was. However, I treat the thesis of what Lambtron is arguing against seriously: that the infobox is essentially for every biographical detail that readers might be interested in. Several editors have argued in the past that "the infobox should be the same as Infobox person but with some additional relevant fields". So, we should have somewhere around 60 fields, most of which are unrelated to the fact that the person is a musician (which is why they're notable in the first place)? Blegh. I've argued against this specifically in some of the past discussions. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
            • You seem to be under the misapprehension that only facts relating to the subject's career may go into the infobox. That is not so; it may be used to display any pertinent facts about the subject, including spouses, children and other relatives, when we have articles about them. Your comment about pets is asinine, since no-one is proposing to include them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As asinine as it may seem, I believe that family members (including pets) belong in the article, not the template. Lambtron (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
With "pets" you've returned to the pet argument: the slippery slope fallacy. Nobody here is arguing to put a pets parameter in the infobox. Thanks for retaining your consistency. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems that your fixation on slippery slopes is interfering with your understanding of my arguments. If you keep this in mind as you review my arguments, you will see that they have everything to do with topic relevance and nothing to do with slippery slopes. Lambtron (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
You seem to think that if your argument is correct and consensus is to add it that others will not come along and say that because that's there these other parameters are listed in infoboxY so they should be here just as the spouse(s) parameter is. Let's face it, Britney Spears' children, Victoria Beckham's children, Cher's child and others have quite notable children and they have affected their careers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If they do - and you again offer no evidence for your assertion - why would it be any less possible to deal with the matter for this infobox than it is or all the others that already have these parameters? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable spouse parameter for musicians

Should the infobox contain a parameter for spouse, with the instructions telling the user only to fill in the parameter if one or more spouses have a Wikipedia biography written about them? (If one spouse is notable then all the spouses should be listed.) Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support. This would allow for parity between the infoboxes of, say, Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban, and between James Brolin and Barbra Streisand. In both cases, the actor spouse's infobox lists the musical spouse, but the musician's infobox does not list the actor spouse. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As discussed above. Note that there are also five support comments from other editors (one of whom is Binksternet) in the above discussion, in addition to those documented as having given support previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the gazillionth time. There is no way this will work. If a parameter is added to the infobox, then editors are going to fill it regardless of whether the spouse is WP:notable or not. This is an all-or-nothing situation. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • So you (and Walter) assert; but neither of you has been able to explain why that would be an issue for this infobox, and yet not for the others which us the parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Andy, you and I are simply never going agree on this issue. Continuing to debate it with you would go nowhere, as has been the case many times before. Nearly every argument you bring up is one I have addressed in the past, so I will simply stand on my previous comments. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Please point out for the benefit of others, where your previous comments have addressed why the parameter would cause insurmountable problems for this infobox, yet not in others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I have never said it would. This is a straw man argument. I have remarked numerous times as to why the fact that other infoboxes have this parameter does not mean this infobox needs or would benefit from it. That the problems it causes may not be insurmountable does not mean they wouldn't be insufferably annoying, tedious to deal with, and more trouble than they're worth. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
            • OK. You have been unable to explain why using the parameter in this infobox would cause "[problems that would] be insufferably annoying, tedious to deal with, and more trouble than they're worth", and yet does not for the others which us the parameter. If you think you have, please point out for the benefit of others, where your previous comments have addressed why using the parameter in this would cause "[problems that would] be insurmountable does not mean they wouldn't be insufferably annoying, tedious to deal with, and more trouble than they're worth" when it does not in other infoboxes.
  • Oppose, with conditional exception. As the title suggests, "Infobox musical artist" should focus on aspects of the individual musical artist. Family members simply do not fit that category unless they perform as a group, in which case the article is about a group, not an individual performer. Adding spouses or other family members will only serve to enlarge the infobox and impede human readers' ability to quickly access the music-centric summary. Conditional exception: After reading the music-centric summary, some readers may be interested in detailed biographical info such as spouses and children (and other fields found in "Infobox person") and such info would also be useful for DBpedia. I am opposed to having family members appear by default in the infobox, but if there's a way to append "Infobox person" to the bottom of this infobox in such a way that it is initially collapsed, but easily expanded by interested readers, I would support that. Lambtron (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • As I pointed out to you in a section above: You seem to be under the misapprehension that only facts relating to the subject's career may go into the infobox. That is not so; it may be used to display any pertinent facts about the subject, including spouses, children and other relatives, when we have articles about them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to be under the misapprehension that a concise summary can be improved by including all known facts. In the end, that will only make the summary less concise and, taken to the extreme, would have the infobox summarize everything covered in the article. That's not to say that spouses, children, parents, pets, and others who may have influenced an artist are unimportant, but they lack first-order relevance in a summary of notable aspects of the artist and are therefore not pertinent. And, lest you think my position "asinine", please note, as I pointed out to you above, that I'm not opposed to having spouses (and other additional fields) appear in an expandable infobox section as long as that section is initially collapsed by default. Lambtron (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • "all known facts" More exaggeration. "taken to the extreme... pets" That canard has already been refuted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Well that's the rub, isn't it? As I understand it, you think spouses, children, other relatives, and possibly other things (but not pets) are pertinent and belong in the infobox. From my perspective, none of those are notable aspects of the individual artist and therefore none are pertinent facts that belong in the infobox. Perhaps we can find a compromise? What do you think about adding an expandable section for spouses and other additional fields at the bottom of the infobox? Lambtron (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: This discussion is the first time I've heard of DBpedia, and having briefly looked it up my opinion is: It's not part of Wikipedia, nor is it even one of the Wikimedia projects, so it really isn't our concern. It's nice that some aspects of our infoboxes make whatever DBpedia does a little easier for DBpedia to do, but our concern here is Wikipedia, not data-gathering widgets run by other websites. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Rationale given above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: To reiterate my previous comments...Editors are arguing that some musicians have notable family members and listing them in the infobox is useful. Obviously, it is true that some do have notable spouses/parents/siblings/offspring but they are a very small minority. Under 'General Considerations' of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes it states "Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." The spouses/partners/children of very few musicians are relevant. Infoxes for different vocations by their nature will contain different parameters, Infobox boxer has parameters for height and reach, and rightfully so, but this information isn't relevant for most other boxes. J04n(talk page) 21:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the field. If the musician has a spouse, then it should be listed in the infobox, regardless of the notability of the spouse. — ΛΧΣ21 21:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support adding the spouse parameter. There is clearly a demand for it by editors as shown by the many requests for it over the years. It will also be of benefit to the readers to have this information in the infobox where they are accustomed to finding it in other infoboxes which contain the spouse parameter. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only relevant to the careers of a small number of articles in the grand scheme of things. Attempts to restrict its usage (only listing spouses if they themselves are notable) is an even worse idea, and will only make BLPs all that much more difficult to maintain. Just leave the infobox as is. — ξxplicit 01:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • As above: please explain why you think it "will only make BLPs all that much more difficult to maintain", yet causes no significant problems when used in other infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • That part of my comment was actually about the proposal to only list notable spouses, which is the question asked in this RFC.
        I'd also like to point out a thought that came to me yesterday. Why isn't anyone arguing to add a 'civil unions' field? Most same-sex couples aren't extended the same rights as heterosexual couples. And where's the field for those who aren't even extended the right to a civil union? — ξxplicit 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • support There exist artists with spouses worthy of mention (notable in their own right, or as collaborators). A template parameter would improve our recording and presentation of this. Such a parameter would not then become mandatory, or at a risk bloating articles with a baggage of the insignificant spouses. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Lots of things are worthy of mention and they are mentioned -- in the article. Adding those things to the infobox will not improve their recording or presentation; it will simply clutter the infobox. Lambtron (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Your argument that it would "clutter" the infobox by adding a spouse parameter is merely an aesthetics argument. And while aesthetics are important, they are also highly subjective and of minor importance when deciding what parameters should be added to an infobox. Whether or not having certain information located in the infobox would be helpful to the readers should be the primary consideration when deciding what parameters should be added to an infobox. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The spouse should be noted under personal life, and it's not incredibly important to have it in the infobox. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per User:J04n, User:Dreambeaver et al. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. To my mind, all spouses should be included, just as they are in in the other infoboxes. It's appropriate because:
    • One's spouse is often one of the most important factors in a musician's life. It's more important, sometimes, than what particular whistle-stop she was born in or what podunk college she went to or whatever, certainly more important than the exact particular day she was born on -- in terms of influencing the totality of who she was.
    • The basic core of "vital statistics" is traditionally considered to be birth date, marriage date(s), divorce date(s), death dates, and sometimes children's birth dates, I think. We don't do dates (except birth and death) but the spirit of the tradition is to include marriage info, which we do by spouse name rather than marriage date. So it's basic encyclopedic core data.
I don't know what's so special about musicians that you wouldn't include this info just for them. To my mind, limiting it to just notable spouses is wrong, but it's better than having no spouses at all, I suppose. I would suggest that the anti-spouse faction consider this a very generous compromise, and take it. Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Many factors are important in an artist's personal life that have nothing to do with the individual or his/her notability. To single out one or more specific factors and declare them to be especially worthy of inclusion in the infobox is subjective at best, and illogical and counterproductive at worst. As for tradition, have a look at infobox boxer, another professional infobox that is similarly affected by this reality. Lambtron (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - with a clear indication that the parameter is optional. When the artist has a notable spouse it has a clear utility, there is actually utility if the spouse is not notable as lack of blue link indicates this. It also make it posible for bots like DBpedia to extract information. There maybe some cruft added but to me the benefits outweigh the problems.--Salix (talk): 08:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The caveat that the notable spouse must have a Wikipedia biography written makes me laugh. This will be obeyed about as well as everywhere else an article states add as notable only if an article exists...sign me on for removing redlinks. Fylbecatulous talk 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when notable--especially if there is any link between the careers. Yes, people will make redlinks--and either the will be justified as articles and made,into articles, or removed. That's routine in other parts of articles. I have a feeling that it might be justified for creative artists in general, but again only where notable. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - How much different would John Lennon's biography read if he hadn't married Yoko? The spouse is extraordinarily influential in the other-half's sum. That they are no longer two, but one, is not only scriptural, it is also codified in law; barring the state from requiring a spouse to testify against their partner, as a form of self-incrimination. --My76Strat (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't you mean his marriage to Cynthia Powell? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support If and only if the template instructions specify that the field is to be used for "blue-linked" spouses and is not a "mandatory field" or even a "suggested field" otherwise. Collect (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is an encyclopedia. if i go to a page, i want to know as much as possible, and usually, in as quick a way as possible. listing the spouse is not for gossip columns, it is for general knowledge. i do like that it should be only if the spouse is wikified. Soosim (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RFC discussion

Since the RfC has already passed, and per the WP:ANRFC, I am going to close this discussion in a few minutes and assess the consensus. Additional comments are welcome. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be honest, the discussion is here is seriously TL;DR, but I'll add my support for including a spouse field. The reason I even discovered this discrepancy is because I noticed that on Amanda Palmer's page, no spouse is listed, yet on author Neil Gaiman's page, his marriage to Palmer is included in his infobox. Waykup (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Field - honorific_suffix

I'd like to incorporate the Infobox officeholder parameter "honorific-suffix" as an optional parameter to accommodate the (mostly British/Commonwealth) artists who have been honoured and have post-nominals letters (MBE, CBE and Knights). Between Sunday 10th March and 1st April I'd like to hear your opinions. The code would be:
{{#if:{{{honorific-suffix|}}}|<br /><span class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size:87%">{{{honorific-suffix|}}}</span>}} -- Karl Stephens (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Support, but we should also use |honorific_prefix=. Code can be copied from {{infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Enquiry, did Pigsonthewing mean to say, "we should use |honorific_suffix= with an underscore and not a hyphen? If so, I agree as underscore is used in so many places military person, Member of Parliament). ---- Karl Stephens (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I meant |honorific_suffix= (as in Sir Paul McCartney); but you are right, the field initially proposed should be |honorific_prefix=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Outcome: It's been 3 weeks without anyone protesting so will make the change tonight. Karl Stephens (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened with that? BTW, the parameters should only show when the subject is an individual. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Is it possible to add the "alma mater" field in this template, like the one in Infobox Person? I think it would be informative. Thanks! Mimi C. (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2013

Please support the |signature= param from {{Infobox person}} (there are currently hacks being used, like at Freddie Mercury, which lumps it in with the associated acts.

In general, it would be great if this and other occupation-specific Infoboxes supported all of the relevant params from the more generic Infoboxes (i.e. were subclasses of them). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests are only done if there is consensus. Get that first. Zach 02:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It was just suggested and soundly rejected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. I am proposing the above since lack of support for the |signature= param is causing at least one article to work-around with a hack. Is there some harm that would come from it that I'm missing? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Doh! I guess I should have looked at the huge section above (that seems to be breaking the appearance of section edit links down here). I surrender . —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
"soundly rejected"? ITYM "no consensus was reached". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sort of. It seems like this is another one of those irreconcilable differences, with the Infobox minimalist camp on one side, and those who want the same base bio params available across all Infoboxes on the other. No way I'm stepping into another one of those. I'm already involved in one at MOS:TM, and one's my limit . (I'm hoping that the Lua crowd will eventually get to making an Infobox class hierarchy, and the problem will resolve itself, with minimalists have to make their case to exclude those base class params ). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit) ...and now I see that was directed at Walter, which makes more sense. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Image size

It looks like the Image_size and Landscape parameters are no longer working. In the template doc, it says that for landscape images, the parameters should be set to Image_size=250 and Landscape=yes. The first would set the image width to 250px (or whatever value was set) instead of the default 220px, the second would limit the image height rather than the image width. This used to work fine, but now infobox images are displayed with a width of 220px regardless of these settings. See for example the current version of Kingfish (band). Anybody know what's going on with this? (In case it makes a difference, I'm using Windows 7 and Firefox 20.) — Mudwater (Talk) 14:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Had some }} in the wrong place. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to have done the trick. Thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 18:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to improve instructions for Instruments parameter

I would like to improve the instructions for |instruments= to include that this should not list every instrument the musician ever played, but only the primary instruments. (I don't want to include the word "notable", because I don't want to confuse this parameter with |notable_instruments=.) Also, I see many articles for rock musicians use "vocals" instead of "singing". Any suggestions for how this section could be reworded? GoingBatty (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How about something like: "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has recorded or performed with", however notably or similar. I'm pretty neutral on "singing" versus "vocals", though since "vocals" redirects to "singing", perhaps the latter is more appropriate. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I would say that we should make the two parameters immediately adjacent to one another in the doc and distinguish between them.
The wording suggested by GabeMc is fine excepted "every instrument the subject has ever used" to "every instrument the subject has recorded or performed with". For instance, just because a guitarist plays the glockenspiel on one song on one album and the theremin on one track on another album doesn't make it a regular instrument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Walter, I changed the wording to reflect your above suggestion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
On the secondary issue, singing is not an instrument (noun). That's a verb. The vocal instrument is "voice". But then the link would probably need to be piped as [singing|voice]. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Strongly agree with GabeMc's suggestion to put in wording the "Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used, however notably"
Agree, except for the last two words "however notably", just to be sure there's no confusion between the two parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree and have changed the proposed language accordingly. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Added text - thanks everyone! GoingBatty (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Singing is a subset of vocals. For instance, spoken word is considered vocals but not singing. Voice is fine, but less commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesteve (talk • contribs) 09:52, 7 May 2013‎

Awards

Some artists win significant awards, such as an Ivor Novello Award or Grammy award. We should add |award=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that information important enough for the infobox? Why? (I don't necessarily disagree with you, just wondering what your rationale is for including this information in the infobox.) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure it should go in the infobox either. If it were to be used I could see a great many irrelevant and non-notable awards being added. Conversely, artists who receive multiple notable awards could have a very large infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Unsursprisingly, this has been discussed several times before: Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 3#Awards (May 2007), Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 4#Awards parameters (March 2008), Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 5#Add awards section (August 2008). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
A five-year old discussion which reached no consensus is hardly persuasive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Once again: we don;t prevent the inclusion of poor information by disallowing the inclusion of any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
For the same reason we include awards in infoboxes for writers, fashion designers, various sports people, and our generic biographical infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't see how this is important enough for the infobox. I have to agree with what Illazilla said in those previous archived discussions: "Basically I'm not in favor of adding fields to the infobox that don't apply to the majority of articles that the template is used in. I see this as a magnet for cruft/OR, with editors adding in any random "award" that they feel will fluff up their favorite artist. Then we have to debate about criteria: Which awards are significant enough to go in the infobox? Should we limit the number that are included? Do album awards apply to the artists?". Several other arguments against this addition are also made by various users in those discussions, which I also agree with. I'm also in favour of not adding more stuff to the infobox; we just finished removing reviews from the infobox because they made it too bloated. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
From {{Infobox writer}}:
Insert any notable awards the person has won.
Consider using the template: {{awd|award|year|title|role}}
Separate entries using {{Plainlist}}. Note: Do not add icons or other images.
If we were to follow their example, I would be interested in determining several things first:
  1. How many articles are in the project
  2. How they define notable awards
  3. How much difficulty they have experienced in editors respecting the field.
Once again, we have every right to prevent the inclusion of poor information and throw the potentially good information out with it. There's no rule that says we have to follow other projects, nor is there any good reason to include this field.
However, there are rules to prevent other editors from changing your talk page comments. While some editors may think that removing line breaks is just formatting, to others it's an essential part of a discussion and I tire of some editors thinking that other editors are clueless editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll comment on awards later, but anyone who puts line breaks between entries in what is in fact a definition list is - with regard to the harm they're doing to the HTML and thus accessibility; and the rules [sic] on talk page editing - clueless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
What a load of OR. Show me where that is stipulated on Wikipedia:Etiquette. Separating comments makes it easier to read when editing, which is why I prefer to insert a space before my comments. Repeatedly removing them and asserting your own preference is parochial and I won't stand for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
if you check the HTML source you will see the difference between the version with and without the newline. as far as the awards parameter goes, it does seem like it could cause infobox bloat. Frietjes (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I do it daily. But we're not to concern ourselves with the technical aspects of how the a page is created and do what is most convenient. That was the point made to me three years ago when I was editing an unrelated article I was concerned that the proliferation of templates on the page was causing a great deal of lag after every edit because the templates all had to regenerate. That's also the case here. There is no preferred method for spacing before or after comments left by others and since browsers essentially display the same thing when rendering the page with or without the space it's all crap. Don't make others follow your OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
what is my OR? Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk page message indentation with colons does not use templates. Don't assume that just because your browser shows no visual difference between good and bad markup that that's the case for all users on all devices. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Not OR, not merely my preference and not parochial. Who said anything about WP:Etiquette? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the technology doesn't work the way you like but you're infuriating and we are not to dote on technology, ever. This is almost worthy of an AN/I bnut it's so ridiculous that I'm afraid they'd just tell both of us to take a flying leap. And for the record, since it doesn't show any difference so it's exactly like the one or two space after punctuation debate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The technology works perfectly; so long as people don't do stupid things with it. Again: it may not show a difference to you, but you're not everyone, and for others it's an accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I use the infobox to get a quick summary of who an artist is. Awards don't tell me that, nor will they make the infobox quicker to read, so my preference would be to exclude them. Lambtron (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_11&oldid=1118615151"